Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Graknorke]

"Overqualified" generally means more "we're concerned that you won't be terrified enough of unemployment to stick with us."

[EnigmaticHat]

Work wants me to reimage a computer that doesn't exist physically or in our databases. Happy monday, folks.

Go have a nice break and then tell them all about the computer you reimaged.

(disclaimer: I have never had a job and doing that might get you fired)

[Arx]

-SNIP-

(Trim the quote, Asea)
Overqualified: Dont be if you want a job.

The concept of being overqualified is, IMO, literally the most dumbest possible idea in the history of stupid business decisions. It's pretty much the physical embodiment of Tall Poppy Syndrome.

Of course, that's assuming it's not used as a circumlocutory way of saying 'I don't like you and your face is dumb, fuck off with a rusty spike 4evar, not hired'. Which, even with Truean's carefulness, might well be the case.

I seem to recall someone saying something about how the companies are scared they can't hang onto you if you're overqualified, since you might decide to move to a competitor or start your own business as soon as they've taught you how to do (skill).

[Descan]

It's not lying if you don't put things on your resume. >_>

[Rolan7]

I seem to recall someone saying something about how the companies are scared they can't hang onto you if you're overqualified, since you might decide to move to a competitor or start your own business as soon as they've taught you how to do (skill).

Seems like it ought to be the opposite though?  Experienced people already have most of the training.  The real threat is when they get someone fresh, invest in training them, only for the person to leave for better offers.

I really don't understand the concept at all...

[Aseaheru]

 I think a fair number of companies use it as an excuse not to hire people who have A) been through college or B) are over the age of 40.

[Graknorke]

Seems like it ought to be the opposite though?  Experienced people already have most of the training.  The real threat is when they get someone fresh, invest in training them, only for the person to leave for better offers.

I really don't understand the concept at all...

Hiring costs money. Firms want to hire as infrequently as possible (unless it would save them money to rehire frequently I suppose). If they hire unskilled people then train them up for the job, they're pretty likely to stick with you since it's exactly what they're trained for. Whereas if it's a person who is already well qualified they would be more able to leave for another job.

[Frumple]

Or all of the above, so to speak. As I've been told it, 'overqualified' is generally a buzzword for either being under suspicion to jump ship as soon as it's viable (of course, if you're working with a company that's willing to avoid hiring people for being overqualified, that may be true regardless of work experience >_>), being perceived as being capable and willing to take <someone>'s job in short order (where <someone> has input in the hiring process), or, indeed, being older than they'd prefer.* Or all of those. Plus it's a good generic "screw off" -- even when a company doesn't need a reason to refuse, it's often (to them, anyway) a good idea to have one, to help cut down on negative word of mouth.

Basically, it's a likely signaler they've decided you're not a brainless schmuck, and... don't want that, for whatever reason.

*Because beyond potential medical issues, older folks are more likely to, y'know, not stand there and take it up the metaphorical (or literal, in some particularly odious cases) arse in regards to treatment and wages.

[Lord Shonus]

I seem to recall someone saying something about how the companies are scared they can't hang onto you if you're overqualified, since you might decide to move to a competitor or start your own business as soon as they've taught you how to do (skill).

Seems like it ought to be the opposite though?  Experienced people already have most of the training.  The real threat is when they get someone fresh, invest in training them, only for the person to leave for better offers.

I really don't understand the concept at all...

There's also the job security of the person making the hiring decisions. If the company is making the sensible decision of "let the people who do or manage her job evaluate how well she will fit in that job", an "overqualified" applicant is a threat to make a big splash with the higher-ups and take an advancement opportunity away from the hiring person (or someone that person is bootstrapping.)

[hector13]

It's money. Experienced people expect to be paid more, because they don't require the level of training a fresh person needs (usually)

[Neonivek]

Then there is the THIRD flaw

Overqualified people tend to be less satisfied with their job... and unsatisfied workers do more poorly.

[BlackFlyme]

Got several texts from a project partner today. Apparently there was supposed to be a team meeting today. I was not aware.

Apparently "we as a group decided that you haven't contributed enough to the project". Despite the fact that this would have been the first meeting, and as far as I know, nobody has really started on it yet. I have about a page or so in answers that address each question, but I don't know what anyone has done so far.

Apparently now I'm being assigned by the group to answer questions one through four, with at least two pages on content for each answer, as punishment for not showing up. There's only four questions in the assignment. I also have to proofread and edit.

Looks like I'm both the one doing all the work and the one going under the bus.

[Graknorke]

I'm being assigned by the group to answer questions one through four, with at least two pages on content for each answer, as punishment for not showing up. There's only four questions in the assignment.

You appear to have accidentally been assigned to work with a team of (destined) managers.

[Dutchling]

I envy their efficiency.

[hector13]

Got several texts from a project partner today. Apparently there was supposed to be a team meeting today. I was not aware.

Apparently "we as a group decided that you haven't contributed enough to the project". Despite the fact that this would have been the first meeting, and as far as I know, nobody has really started on it yet. I have about a page or so in answers that address each question, but I don't know what anyone has done so far.

Apparently now I'm being assigned by the group to answer questions one through four, with at least two pages on content for each answer, as punishment for not showing up. There's only four questions in the assignment. I also have to proofread and edit.

Looks like I'm both the one doing all the work and the one going under the bus.

How important is this? (I'm assuming university)

'Cause you could just as easily not do the work and fuck everyone else over for making you do all the work.

Alternatively, talk to them and find out what their issue is, and go from there. If you have proof they're making you do all the work (texts and the work itself) go to a lecturer or something, 'cause that is some bullshit nonsense.